On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 04:30:41PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi!
On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 02:20:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted
On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 02:21:26AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
quoted
compiler: m68k-linux-gcc (GCC) 11.2.0
quoted
kernel/sched/fair.c: In function 'update_curr':
kernel/sched/fair.c:860:42: warning: unused variable 'stats' [-Wunused-variable]
860 | struct sched_statistics *stats = __schedstats_from_se(curr);
| ^~~~~
OK, compiler guys, this code reads like:
#define schedstats_enabled() (0)
#define __schedstat_set(x, y) do { } while (0)
if (schedstats_enabled()) {
struct sched_statistics *stats = __schedstats_from_se(curr);
__schedstat_set(stats->exec_max,
max(delta_exec, stats->exec_max));
}
So yes, we initialize a variable that then isn't used, but the whole
bloody thing is inside if (0) which will not ever get ran *anyway*.
This is a crap warning if ever I saw one...
Yes, we really should warn "do not use a preprocessor macro if what you
want is a function"? The variable really *is* unused, with this macro.
Why would I want to write a bunch of one-off functions and preprocessor
guard them? That's going to be a mess.
If we would remove dead code before warning about unused variables
there would be many *more* false positives, fwiw.
Not if you also remove any variables declared in dead code and all
variables only used in the dead code.